Injunction dysfunction or tyrant disruption? Trump-era judicial paralysis explained

Injunction dysfunction or tyrant disruption? Trump-era judicial paralysis explained


Can a single judge unilaterally thwart the president of the United States?

That’s the contentious question the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve last week in response to court orders blocking its effort to curtail birthright citizenship, coming after a slew of decrees requiring the president to do everything from halting major actions on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and domestic spending to disbursing billions in foreign aid.

‘If any judge can weaponize their power to usurp the president’s legitimate Article II authority and defy the will of the American people, then we no longer have a constitutional republic.’

At issue is a legal remedy — universal injunctions — that allows any of the nearly 700 federal judges to prevent the president from enforcing policies

Trending: This 464-lb NFL Prospect Would Be Heaviest Player in History, But He’s Not Slow – Watch Him Close 40 Yards in Seconds Flat

Continue reading


 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!